Is the ongoing punishment of Adam and Eve justifiable?

[Greatest I am]

"Man is a supernatural construct,"

I disagree and if I have to tell you why then you might as well ignore me.

Being "ignored" is experiential truth...but the truth is there is nothing to ignore as the gnostic philosophy is irrational under its own terms as argued above and on other threads.

As to Jesus, if you only see one in the scriptures you do not know how to look.

I quoted the good one I follow who would free us from religions and their vile traditions od homophobia and misogyny while you only see the vile Rome created construct who would slave us to religions.

You like the one which the Pope now would deny individuals, while I promote the one we can all access and become.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_bvGTc6SM8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfGRN4HVrQ

That Jesus is quite immoral as shown. I would add his immoral substitutionary atonement policy as well as his no divorce for women policy.

Regards
DL

How can he be immoral if you argue subjective experience is moral? Under those terms he is moral and the polarity of force between gnosticism and standard Christianity would require, under a relativistic Neitzchian view point (which you exhibits tendencies toward by observing the necessity of the devil), that your philosophy (under those premises) is actually immoral and contradictory.

You sure put a lot in my mouth that I do not say.

I do not believe in a devil so how can I say she is necessary?

I have said that we must sin as we evolve but that is all.

Jesus can be immoral by my subjective judgement of his policies.

Do you see substitutionary punishment as moral and just?

Do you see a no divorce for women policy that would force then to stay in loveless of abusive relations as moral?

Let's focus on those for the moment?

If you do not see those as his policies then show what they are.

Regards
DL

[Eodnhoj7]

"Man is a supernatural construct,"

I disagree and if I have to tell you why then you might as well ignore me.

Being "ignored" is experiential truth...but the truth is there is nothing to ignore as the gnostic philosophy is irrational under its own terms as argued above and on other threads.

As to Jesus, if you only see one in the scriptures you do not know how to look.

I quoted the good one I follow who would free us from religions and their vile traditions od homophobia and misogyny while you only see the vile Rome created construct who would slave us to religions.

You like the one which the Pope now would deny individuals, while I promote the one we can all access and become.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_bvGTc6SM8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfGRN4HVrQ

That Jesus is quite immoral as shown. I would add his immoral substitutionary atonement policy as well as his no divorce for women policy.

Regards
DL

How can he be immoral if you argue subjective experience is moral? Under those terms he is moral and the polarity of force between gnosticism and standard Christianity would require, under a relativistic Neitzchian view point (which you exhibits tendencies toward by observing the necessity of the devil), that your philosophy (under those premises) is actually immoral and contradictory.

You sure put a lot in my mouth that I do not say.

Or am I reading between the lines?

I do not believe in a devil so how can I say she is necessary?

Evil is necessary according to gnosticism and the devil is an anthropomorphized extension of human condition

I have said that we must sin as we evolve but that is all.

Jesus can be immoral by my subjective judgement of his policies.

Do you see substitutionary punishment as moral and just?

If the participant does it through free will, then under certain circumstances yes it can be moral and just.

Do you see a no divorce for women policy that would force then to stay in loveless of abusive relations as moral?

Loveless and abusive marriages are the foundations for divorce often times. Are people who stay together and do not get married, because of fear of commitment, really in love?

Let's focus on those for the moment?

If you do not see those as his policies then show what they are.

Regards
DL

[attofishpi]

Is the ongoing punishment of Adam and Eve justifiable?

Do you believe Adam and Eve existed? I am a Christian, and I don't. You are very good at starting stupid dumb arse threads from the perspective of stupid dumb arse 'Christian' fund-a-mental-list American fool perspectives.

[Greatest I am]

Do you see substitutionary punishment as moral and just?

If the participant does it through free will, then under certain circumstances yes it can be moral and just.

Do you see a no divorce for women policy that would force then to stay in loveless of abusive relations as moral?

I did not see your answer on the divorce question. Care to opine?

If you were a judge and had a guilty person in front of you, show the circumstances you allude to that would make it moral for you to punish an innocent man instead of the one before you?

Let's use a rapist or murderer.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Is the ongoing punishment of Adam and Eve justifiable?

Do you believe Adam and Eve existed? I am a Christian, and I don't. You are very good at starting stupid dumb arse threads from the perspective of stupid dumb arse 'Christian' fund-a-mental-list American fool perspectives.

If you control your tourette we might be able to chat.

No. I do not think the characters in the bible are real. They are all fiction.

Why are you a Christian if you do not believe in the biblical characters either?

Regards
DL

[attofishpi]

Is the ongoing punishment of Adam and Eve justifiable?

Do you believe Adam and Eve existed? I am a Christian, and I don't. You are very good at starting stupid dumb arse threads from the perspective of stupid dumb arse 'Christian' fund-a-mental-list American fool perspectives.

If you control your tourette we might be able to chat.

No. I do not think the characters in the bible are real. They are all fiction.

Why are you a Christian if you do not believe in the biblical characters either?

Regards
DL

I know Christ and his reason, only knowledge of his existence as Christ is required to be a Christian. The rest I take with a pinch of insult to my intelligence.

[Greatest I am]

Do you believe Adam and Eve existed? I am a Christian, and I don't. You are very good at starting stupid dumb arse threads from the perspective of stupid dumb arse 'Christian' fund-a-mental-list American fool perspectives.

If you control your tourette we might be able to chat.

No. I do not think the characters in the bible are real. They are all fiction.

Why are you a Christian if you do not believe in the biblical characters either?

Regards
DL

I know Christ and his reason, only knowledge of his existence as Christ is required to be a Christian. The rest I take with a pinch of insult to my intelligence.

Just to be clear. To you, all the biblical characters are imaginary except for Christ. Is that correct?

Regards
DL

[attofishpi]

If you control your tourette we might be able to chat.

No. I do not think the characters in the bible are real. They are all fiction.

Why are you a Christian if you do not believe in the biblical characters either?

Regards
DL

I know Christ and his reason, only knowledge of his existence as Christ is required to be a Christian. The rest I take with a pinch of insult to my intelligence.

Just to be clear. To you, all the biblical characters are imaginary except for Christ. Is that correct?

Regards
DL

No.

[Greatest I am]

I know Christ and his reason, only knowledge of his existence as Christ is required to be a Christian. The rest I take with a pinch of insult to my intelligence.

Just to be clear. To you, all the biblical characters are imaginary except for Christ. Is that correct?

Regards
DL

No.

Thanks for explaining.

I guess that is all you wish to convey or discuss. Thanks for the chat.

Regards
DL

[Eodnhoj7]

Do you see substitutionary punishment as moral and just?

If the participant does it through free will, then under certain circumstances yes it can be moral and just.

Do you see a no divorce for women policy that would force then to stay in loveless of abusive relations as moral?

I did not see your answer on the divorce question. Care to opine?

Care to opine on the other responses I provided?

If you were a judge and had a guilty person in front of you, show the circumstances you allude to that would make it moral for you to punish an innocent man instead of the one before you?


Let's use a rapist or murderer.

But Christ is not innocent according to you...and if he is innocent well then your philosophical system is wrong.

Even then the system of releasing one prisoner, in this case Barrabas, was in accords with the custom at the time and the people chose it. So the release of the prisoner and replacement with an innocent man was done by the Jewish extension of the Roman Civilization you argue for. You claim Christ's death was wrong, and argue simultaneously Roman Civilization is correct (if I read you correctly), yet it was this civilization whose law cause the same injustice you argue against.

With that being said:

It is real simple, when a second party steps in and takes responsibility for the accused party.

Regards
DL

[bahman]

Is the ongoing punishment of Adam and Eve justifiable?

Christian dogma says that Adam and Eve were murdered by neglect when God locked away the tree of life.

Eve was deceived by Satan and the talking serpent that God put in Eden. This caused the Original Sin concept that Christianity calls a happy fault and necessary to God’s plan.

Was gaining an education and a moral sense, which basically is what gaining knowledge is, justifiable to you?

Can you see yourself punishing your children for gaining an education and a moral sense the way God is punishing Adam and Eve to this day?

Regards
DL

The existence of evil (doing something that contrary to reason) is unjustifiable in presence of a good God. Therefore the story is false.

[Greatest I am]

Do you see substitutionary punishment as moral and just?

If the participant does it through free will, then under certain circumstances yes it can be moral and just.

Do you see a no divorce for women policy that would force then to stay in loveless of abusive relations as moral?

I did not see your answer on the divorce question. Care to opine?

Care to opine on the other responses I provided?

If you were a judge and had a guilty person in front of you, show the circumstances you allude to that would make it moral for you to punish an innocent man instead of the one before you?


Let's use a rapist or murderer.

But Christ is not innocent according to you...and if he is innocent well then your philosophical system is wrong.

Even then the system of releasing one prisoner, in this case Barrabas, was in accords with the custom at the time and the people chose it. So the release of the prisoner and replacement with an innocent man was done by the Jewish extension of the Roman Civilization you argue for. You claim Christ's death was wrong, and argue simultaneously Roman Civilization is correct (if I read you correctly), yet it was this civilization whose law cause the same injustice you argue against.

With that being said:

It is real simple, when a second party steps in and takes responsibility for the accused party.

Regards
DL

A deflection so that you can squirm away.

You are putting to many false words in my mouth that I would not utter. You are confusing me for someone else and I do not have the time to correct you.

Regards
DL

[Eodnhoj7]

I did not see your answer on the divorce question. Care to opine?

Care to opine on the other responses I provided?

If you were a judge and had a guilty person in front of you, show the circumstances you allude to that would make it moral for you to punish an innocent man instead of the one before you?


Let's use a rapist or murderer.

But Christ is not innocent according to you...and if he is innocent well then your philosophical system is wrong.

Even then the system of releasing one prisoner, in this case Barrabas, was in accords with the custom at the time and the people chose it. So the release of the prisoner and replacement with an innocent man was done by the Jewish extension of the Roman Civilization you argue for. You claim Christ's death was wrong, and argue simultaneously Roman Civilization is correct (if I read you correctly), yet it was this civilization whose law cause the same injustice you argue against.

With that being said:

It is real simple, when a second party steps in and takes responsibility for the accused party.

Regards
DL

A deflection so that you can squirm away.

You are putting to many false words in my mouth that I would not utter. You are confusing me for someone else and I do not have the time to correct you.

Regards
DL

No time to correct? Or no argument or statement of correction?

[gaffo]

yes there are "two" creation stories in genesis.


the "J" (older - where adam/eve were individuals.

and

"E" (where adam/eve were plural "mankind"


---------------we know the whole 2 stories, God made plants after - no! before man - 2 of each - no! 7 of the clean and 2 of unclean - for the ark.

etc.

and no there is no reason one has to be a Fundie in order to be a Christian. in fact most christians are not (but fundies are so fking loud - they are like the Muslim Wahhbists............with their noise they drown out the "silent majority" of their ilk.

one can believe in Evolution and be a Christian too of course - and many are, but they allow the fundies to drown them out and make it seem they are not via their silence sadly.

I know Christ and his reason, only knowledge of his existence as Christ is required to be a Christian. The rest I take with a pinch of insult to my intelligence.

I have no interest in converting you to my Atheism, for it offer nothing, but interested in knowing why you are a christian if willing to discuss.

i like your christ and view him as i do other good men (Ghandi/etc).


BTW i have read most of the bible and as an outsider - see three Christs in the four gospels.

Mark - christ is just a man born via sex bet mary and joseph - the best one that ever lived and so was adopted by God to be his son via John the Baptist

Matt/Luke - born via mary and God - God's son.

John - God himself in human form.

..............

author of Mark would dissagree with theology of Matt and Luke and uttely view esp John as heresy.

author of Matt/Luke would view author of Mark as lacking understanding, and author of John as heresy.

author of John would view Mark/Matt/Luke as lacking understanding and not true christians.

[gaffo]

BTW from my interest in knowing the man Jesus, it looks like he was a stone-mason, not a carpenter. born in Nazarith (not Bethlehem - that was added in matt to validate OT prophecy of a messiah), probably was minimally literate in both Greek and Aramaic, soild blue collar guy, killed by the Romans for being an Israeli Nationalist Essene, the condemnation/killing of via the Roman would have served the Seducees of course - being servants of the Romans. but the the mover and shakers were the Romans.

the romans killed your Christ. they ruled the world at that time, had they not wished it, and the Saduchess - even if they demanded christ's death - he would not be put on the cross.

fact is the Gospel's rewrote the roles and made the Saduchess the ones that made things happen (killed Christ). that is historical bullshit (authors of the gospels lived under roman rule and would know of their own bullshit in this particular, so that narrative was invented to promote the fledgling christian-judaic cult of that time.

2-cents.

one does not oppose the Kittim without dying for it................not between 50 BC - 340 AD at least.


unless you are Armenous(sp) - then you get the better of Varis and take a nice golden Eagle too boot...................then get killed by one of your own via challenge to kingship 15 yrs later ;-/.